My whole goal is to try protect people from getting scammed by the whole change in the FOREX market from real to simulated. While 9 thousand people have visited my blog- most come to try put advertising in the comment sections.

I’ve had maybe 25 real comments. Is that all the real readers I’ve had?

If this blog has helped you- please let me know, Gathering the information takes a lot of time and is pointless if no one is making use of it.

Below is the list of non-registered or non-authorized entities with the FSA, based on information received from investors. Investors should be aware that the solicitations of investment by these listed entities have a possibility of cold calling. Please be reminded that other suspected cold callers may exist and additional entities may be listed. Please also be advised that there have been cases where different companies were located in addresses indicated in the list below. The fact that the address is put in the list below does not mean that such companies have any connection to the listed entities.

Investors Alert by the IOSCO

In February, 2002, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) released a statement of “Investors Alert on cold calling,” of which points are as follows:

Generally speaking, an entity is required to have some form of authorization by the regulators in the country where the investors that it would solicit reside, in order to conduct financial/securities business. There is a possibility that cold callers do not have such authorization and they are involved in illegal activities by which investors lose their money.

Therefore, investors should not make an investment solely on the basis of “cold calls.” Before making an investment decision and paying money, investors should, at the very least, check whether the entities are given registration and/or authorization as securities dealers, investment advisers, etc., by the regulators in the jurisdictions where the investors reside and the entities claim to operate. Investors also should make serious inquiries into the legitimacy of the entity if the entity promises spectacular returns or “guaranteed” profits.

The IOSCO Asian Pacific Regional Committee (APRC) also announced a press release in February, 2002. The APRC members, including the FSA, expressed their intension to enhance cooperation, mutual assistance and information-sharing to detect illegal activities, as well as to publicize the names of unlicensed/unregistered entities, in order to prevent investors from becoming victims by fraudulent activities.

Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities (PAUSE)

List of Fictitious Governmental Agencies and International Organizations Associated with Soliciting Entities

The SEC receives complaints from investors and others, including foreign securities regulators, about securities solicitations made by entities claiming to offer investments endorsed, approved, or otherwise supported by governmental agencies, including the SEC, or international organizations. The SEC does not “approve” or “endorse” any particular securities, issuers, products, services, professional credentials, firms, or individuals, and does not allow private entities to use its government seal. The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued a number of Investor Alerts, available here, on the topic of bogus regulators and SEC impersonators. In many cases, SEC investigation reveals that the so-called governmental agencies or international organizations claimed to have lent support to these solicitations do not exist. In an effort to warn the public about these entities, the SEC is posting the list below. The SEC will regularly update this list.

Additional PAUSE Lists

In addition to the fictitious regulators listed below, the SEC also receives complaints about unregistered soliciting entities and entities impersonating genuine US registered securities firms. You can view a list of these entities by following the separate links listed below.

You should be aware that these lists do not include all unregistered entities, impersonators of genuine firms, fake regulators, or entities that have been the subject of complaints received by the SEC. Also, you should understand that the inclusion of a name on these lists does not mean that the SEC has concluded that a violation of the US securities laws has occurred or that the SEC has made any judgment about the merits of the securities being offered by these entities. You can view the official SEC release describing and providing more details about this list. If you have information, questions or comments about the entities on this list, please contact oiea@sec.gov or call 202-551-6551.

Division of Securities for the District of Columbia (DOSDC)
Phone: 202-596-3591
Fax: 202-330-5156
E-mail: hotline@dosdc.org
No website or address provided in documents.

The Division of Securities for the District of Columbia (DOSDC) is impersonating the genuine Securities Bureau of the Department of Insurance, Securities & Banking (DISB) located at 810 First Street, N.E., Suite 622, Washington, DC 20002. The impersonator has NO connection with, and is not to be confused with, the genuine Securities Bureau of the Department of Insurance, Securities & Banking (DISB) of the District of Columbia.

Washington, DC– The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today filed a Notice of Intent (Notice) to revoke the registration of Prestige Capital Advisors, LLC (Prestige) of Charlotte, North Carolina, as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA).

The CFTC Notice alleges that Prestige is subject to statutory disqualification from CFTC registration based on an Order of default judgment and permanent injunction entered against Prestige in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on January 25, 2013 (see CFTC Press Release 6615-13). The Order finds that Prestige fraudulently solicited and accepted more than $4.7 million from multiple pool participants for investment in one or more commodity pools that traded among other things, commodities and futures contracts. The Order also finds that Prestige misappropriated pool participant funds, posted false trading returns on a website called BarclayHedge (where fund managers could post unverified historical returns for prospective clients to view), sent false trading results to at least one Prestige pool participant, and issued false account statements. As a result, Prestige was ordered to pay approximately $6.9 million in civil monetary penalties and restitution of over $4.1 million.

Ever opened a contract with an auto limit in place and it showed up close with one pair but far away for another- and wondered why- its all part of the game. People are visual. FXCM knows – if it looks the same people will think its the same and confidently place an order. Before you place a big order- place one for a single tiny contract to verify how far away 12 pips really is. The closer 12 pips appears to the position- the more money you will make.

proof: I opened positions in 8 pairs and this shows where the limit showed up in the same screen view for all 8.

CFTC alleges that Defendants, who took in more than $73 million, defrauded customers in connection with precious metals transactions and engaged in illegal off-exchange commodity transactions

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that on August 13, 2013, it filed a civil injunctive enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Worth Group Inc. (Worth), as well as its owner, Andrew Wilshire, and its sole officer and director, Eugenia Mildner, all of Jupiter, Florida. The CFTC’s Complaint charges that Defendants defrauded retail precious metals customers and engaged in illegal, off-exchange retail commodity transactions from July 16, 2011, through the present.

According to the Complaint, Worth purported to sell physical metal, including gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, on a fully-paid basis, as well as on a financed basis, to hundreds of retail customers located throughout the United States. The Complaint alleges that Worth falsely represented to customers that, within 28 days of a customer’s purchase, Worth would deliver metal either to the customers directly or to a depository that would hold the metal for the customer. The Complaint alleges that pursuant to the scheme, Worth took in over $73 million in customer funds between July 18, 2011, and December 31, 2012.

As alleged, in connection with fully-paid transactions, customers paid the full purchase price to Worth for metals, having been told that Worth would deliver metal in return. The Complaint alleges that from at least August 15, 2011, through November 8, 2012, however, Worth did not actually deliver metal to most customers. Instead, rather than deliver actual metal, Worth’s typical practice after receiving customer money was to purchase metals derivatives in accounts owned by Worth. These derivatives purportedly “covered” customer transactions, but, contrary to Worth’s representations to customers, did not involve the purchase, transfer, or physical delivery of precious metals to Worth, let alone to its retail customers.

Retail customers engaging in financed transactions with Worth were told that they were borrowing money to purchase precious metals. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), a financed transaction such as that conducted by Worth is an illegal off-exchange transaction unless it results in actual delivery of metal within 28 days. The Complaint alleges that Worth often failed to make such delivery on a timely basis. Worth thus defrauded its customers and subjected them to undisclosed exposure to Worth’s credit, as they were left with only Worth’s commitment to deliver metal rather than the promised metal itself.

The Complaint further alleges that as persons controlling Worth’s precious metals operations, Wilshire and Mildner are liable for Worth’s violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and a CFTC Regulation.

In its continuing litigation against Defendants, the CFTC seeks preliminary and permanent civil injunctions in addition to other remedial relief, including restitution, civil monetary penalties, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

This is the third action the CFTC has brought against entities and individuals who purport to buy precious metals and transfer ownership of those metals to customers, when insufficient metal, or no metal at all, is in fact purchased and delivered (see CFTC Press Releases 6447-12 and 6655-13).

David Meister, the CFTC’s Enforcement Director, stated: “The rules of the new Dodd-Frank law are simple: Companies and individuals who purport to sell precious metals to the retail public, and who say they are supplying real metal, must actually deliver real metal. As today’s case shows, along with previously filed Complaints against Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC and AmeriFirst Management, LLC, we will not hesitate to pursue wrongdoers who say they are providing investments in real precious metals to the American public when in fact they are providing nothing of the sort.”

The CFTC thanks the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority for its assistance in this matter.

In January 2012, the CFTC issued a Precious Metals Consumer Fraud Advisory to alert customers to precious metals fraud. The Advisory states that the CFTC had seen an increase in the number of companies offering customers the opportunity to buy or invest in precious metals. The CFTC’s Advisory specifically warns that companies often fail to purchase any physical metals for their customers, instead simply keeping the customer’s funds. The Advisory further cautions customers that leveraged commodity transactions are unlawful unless executed on a regulated exchange.